ML20073R855
Text
._.
U. lo
- f
/
/"%
3 UNITED STATES o
.i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20 lie 6
\\*****[
January 25, 1993 MEMORANDUM FOR: The Chairman Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Curtiss Commissioner Remick Commissioner de Planque FROM:
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
QUARTERLY STATUS REPORT OF ADVANCED LIGHT WATER REACTOR REVIEWS (SEPTEMBER - DECEMBER 1991,)
In a memorandum of June 20, 1991, I directed the staff to prepare quarterly reports outlining the status of its reviews of advanced reactor designs.
The enclosed quarterly _ report is the sixth in the series and covers from Septem-ber 1 through December 31, 1992.
In this report, the staff addresses the review status of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Utility Requirements Document (URD) for passive reactors, the GE Nuclear Energy (GE) Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) design, the Asea Brown Boveri-Combustion Engineering (ABB-CE) System 80+
design, the Westinghouse AP600 design, and the GE Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (SBWR) design. The report consists of three sections:
(1) an executive summary, (2) a discussion of technical and policy issues that could affect the schedule for more than one project, and (3) the status of the review of each advanced reactor project.
J mes M. Taylor E ecutive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
As Stated cc: SECY OGC ACRS CONTACT:
Michael J. Case, NRR 1
504-1134 Ylh6f g
l 3
I
~
QUARTERLY STATUS REPORT OF ADVANCED LIGHT WATER REACTOR REVIEWS SEPTEMBER - DECEMBER 1992 I.
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
This is the sixth quarterly report to the Commission on the status of l
the NRC staff's design certification reviews of evolutionary and advanced light water reactors (LWRs). The report addresses the GE Nuclear Energy (GE) Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) design, the Asea Brown Boveri-Combustion Engineering (ABB-CE) System 80+ design, the Westinghouse AP600 design, the GE Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (SBWR) design, and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Utility l
Requirements Document (URD) for passive reactor designs.
The staff i
issued the fin:' safety evaluation report (FSER) for the EPRI URD for l
evolutionary reactor designs in August-1992 and will not provide a 1
l further status on that project in this report. This report also i
includes a discussion of technical and policy issues that could affect the schedule for more than one project.
~
l The staff issued its draft final safety evaluation report (DFSER) on the l
ABWR design in October 1992. The staff was delayed in its ABWR review because of difficulties encountered in resolving first-of-a-kind issues
~
and by the lack of timely, high-quality design information [especially information pertaining to inspections, tests, analysis, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC) and severe accident closure] from GE. The DFSER iden-tified over 370 open items, about half of which are related to ITAAC.
GE and the staff are conducting intensive conference calls and face-to-face meetings at the working and management levels to reach prompt resolution of all issues.
In addition, a multidiscipline review team has been formed to expedite the resolution of selected ABWR ITAAC issues. The team will travel to GE in mid-January 1993 and the results of this review will be discussed in the next quarterly report. The resource commitment necessary to bring ABWR issues to completion will likely cause delays in other LWR reviews.
As a result of the many difficult design issues and delays experienced in the ITAAC development, the staff is developing a revised ABWR schedule for FSER issuance and final design approval (FDA).
The staff expects to provide a revised schedule to the Commission in February 1993.
The staff issued the ABB-CE System 80+ draft safety evaluation report (DSER) to the Commission on September 28, 1992.
The DSER contained approximately 638 open items and 130 confirmatory items. The staff did not address several major areas in the DSER review, such as ITAAC, shutdown risk, and severe accident closure, because ABB-CE had not provided the information or the information was not submitted to the staff in time to be included in the DSER review.
To date, ABB-CE has provided about one half of the responses to the DSER open items. ABB-CE will provide all open item responses and a majority of the ITAAC
^
ENCLOSURE
J
- l submittals to the staff in late January 1993. All ITAAC submittals are scheduled to be complete by the end of March 1993.
Delays in the final submittals (especially with regard to ITAAC) in conjunction with the i
resource impact associated wita staff support of the revised ABWR l
schedule will likely delay the System 80+ review schedule.
On December 15, 1992, Westinghouse submitted the information noted as missing or incomplete in the staff's original acceptance review of the AP600 design certification application. The staff subsequeid y deter-mined that the information provided fulfilled the requirements of 10 CFR Part 52 and has formally accepted the Westinghouse AP600 application as a docketed petition for design certification. The staff's formal review schedule for the AP600 is under evaluation.
On December 10, 1992, the staff transmitted a letter to GE regarding the staff's acceptance review of the SBWR design certification application.
It stated that although the application contained an extensive amount of information, it did not include all of the information required by 10 CFR Part 52. The staff informed GE that it will continue to review the application for the SBWR design, but will establish a formal review schedule only after GE completes its SBWR application. Until receiving a complete application, the staff will continue to issue requests for additional information (RAI) if appropriate.
On September 2, 1992, EPRI completed submitting its responses to the staff's DSER on the URD for passive reactor designs in accordance with the schedule in SECY-91-161. The staff continues to discuss and resolve open issues related to the review of this document. The regulatory treatment of non-safety systems is the most critical issue related to this review project. The staff discussed its preliminary findings and proposed resolution of this issue with EPRI during several mid-level management meetings during the period. An NRC/EPRI senior management meeting in January 1993 will focus on the resolution of this issue. The results of this meeting will be provided in the next quarterly report.
II.
TECHNICAL AND POLICY ISSUES THAT COULD AFFECT REVIEW SCHEDULES In items A through E, the staff discusses the status of five major policy issues that may affect the schedules for reviewing design applications.
A.
NEPA SAMDAs The staff previously ind.cated that the resolution of the National Environmental Policy Act Severe Accident Mitigation Design Alter-natives (NEPA SAMDAs) may delay the projected review schedules.
On July 31, 1991, the staff sent SECY-91-229, " Severe Accident Mitigation Design Alternatives for Certified Standard Designs,"
to the Commission.
In this paper, the staff requested that the Commission approve the staff's recommendations to (1) address SAMDAs for certified designs in a single rulemaking, (2) approve the staff's approach for considering the costs and benefits of reviewing SAMDAs for standard plant design certification, and
i
! (3) approve the staff's proposal to advise applicants for design certification that they must assess SAMDAs and provide rationale supporting their decision.
In a staff requirements memorandum of October 25, 1991, the Commission approved the staff's recommendations and " expressed a desire to be kept informed of the staff progress in defining remote and speculative as it reviews the ABWR submissions."
1.
MILESTONES FOR LAST QUARTER i
Continue to interact with GE and the industry while reviewing the design alternatives for the ABWR.
2.
MILESTONES ACCOMPLISHED l
The staff received GE's response to questions regarding the 10 CFR 50.34(f) requirements for the ABWR.
GE has also provided the Technical Support Document for the SAMDAs review of the ABWR.
The staff is reviewing this information.
3.
MILESTONES NOT ACCOMPLISHED None.
4.
EFFECT ON SCHEDULE AND REC 0VERY The staff is reviewing information GE recently submitted in response to a 10 CFR 50.34(f) requirement and SAMDAs.
If the staff receives timely responses to questions developed while reviewing this information, it can complete the SAMDAs review on a schedule consistent with ABWR certification.
5.
MILESTONE PLANNED FOR NEXT QUARTER Continue to interact with GE and the industry while reviewing the design alternatives for the ABWR.
B.
ITAAC The resolution of the ITAAC is the most critical issue in review-ing the evolutionary LWR designs.
1.
MILESTONES FOR LAST QUARTER Continue to review ITAAC submittals from the vendors and meet with the vendors, as necessary, to resolve issues found during the review.
. 2.
MILESTONES ACCOMPLISHED a.
On September 22, 1992, the staff sent SECY-92-327, l
" Reviews of Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Accep-tance Criteria (ITAAC) for the General Electric (GE)
Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR)," to the Commis-sion. This report summarized the findings of the Greybeards, a senior-level independent review group, and the ITAAC Working Group.
b.
On October 19, 1992, the staff provided ABB-CE with comments on the pilot ITAACs for the System 80+.
c.
On numerous occasions during the period, the staff met l
with GE and NUMARC to discuss ITAAC issues and the l
lessons learned from the industry review of the ABWR l
On November 23, 1992, the staff briefed the l
Commission on the progress of design certification i
reviews. This briefing focused on ITAAC lessons learned and major ITAAC issues for completion of the l
ABWR review.
3.
MILESTONES NOT ACCOMPLISHED None.
4.
EFFECT ON SCHEDULE AND REC 0VERY In SECY-91-210, " Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) Requirements for Design Review and Issuance of a Final Design Approval (FDA)," and during the Novem-ber 23, 1992, Commission briefing, the staff reiterated that the schedule for design certifications could be delayed if ITAAC submittals are significantly delayed or incorMete.
The DFSER issued in October contained approximately 379 open l
items of which 175 were related to ITAAC. At a November 18, 1992, senior management meeting, GE was tasked to provide a l
chapter-by-chapter schedule for providing responses to all DFSER design issues, for updating the SSAR, and for resolving ITAAC issues.
The staff is evaluating GE's response and is developing a revised schedule for issuance of an FDA.
The l
staff continues to work toward resolving ITAAC issues.
Staff reviewers conducted numerous conference calls and face-to-face meetings with GE on ITAAC related issues.
In addition, a multidiscipline NRR review team, headed by the Plant Sys-tems Branch, has been formed to resolve selected ABWR ITAAC with GE. The team will travel to GE in mid-January 1993.
l l
l
l L l
ABB-CE System 80+
The DSER for the System 80+, issued in September 1992, did not include an evaluation of ITAAC.
Since the issuance of the DSER, the staff has_provided comments to ABB-CE on a set of pilot ITAAC. ABB-CE has indicated that approximately 70 of the 90 System 80+ ITAAC will be submitted to the staff by the end of January 1993. An industry review of the System 80+ ITAAC is scheduled for February and all ITAAC submittals will be complete by the end of March 1993.
Delays in the i
final ITAAC submittals in conjunction with the resource j
impact associated with staff support of the revised ABWR schedule will likely delay the System 80+ revie-schedule.
AP600 The staff did not provide early feedback to Westinghouse on their pilot ITAAC because_of the recent industry review effort, the preliminary status of the AP600 review, and the inclusion of Westinghouse on distribution for comments on the ABWR and System 80+ ITAAC.
The formal review schedule for AP600 is under evaluation.
5.
MILESTONES PLANNED FOR NEXT QUARTER a.
Continue to review ITAAC submittals from the vendors l
and meet with the vendors, as necessary, to resolve i
issues found during the review.
b.
Expedite the resolution of selected system ITAAC for i
the ABWR with the multidiscipline NRR review team.
c.
Conduct a briefing for the staff on the status and the lessons learned from ITAAC development.
C.
SEVERE ACCIDENT CLOSURE The probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) (FSER Chapter 19.1) and closure of.s'evere accidents (FSER Chapter 19.2) represents a significant element of the staff's review of the ABWR. To close severe accidents for advanced designs, the staff requires a balanced approach of severe accident prevention and mitigation and development of an accident management plan.
The basis for the review is to ensure that advanced plants have.a higher degree of severe accident safety performance than previous designs and to take. advantage of lessons learned from performance of PRAs, operating experience, and severe accident research. The staff is using the Commission's Severe Accident Policy Statement and Commission-approved positions from SECY-90-016, " Evolutionary Light Water Reactor (LWR) Certification Issues and Their Rela-tionship to Current Regulatory Requirements" as primary guidance r
. - _ _ _ _ _ _ __ in determining acceptability. The use of PRA to resolve severe accidents requires recognition of inherent uncertainties.
To this extent, the staff believes that a combination of both PRA and deterministic methods may be used to alleviate uncertainties and reach closure for severe accidents.
1.
MILESTONES FOR LAST QUARTER Continue to interact with GE and other applicants on PRA and severe accident issues.
2.
MILESTONES ACCOMPLISHED a.
On November 18, 1992, GE and the NRC held a senior management meeting to discuss proposed schedules for closure of issues including severe accidents and PRA.
As a result of the meeting, GE will provide a chapter-by-chapter schedule for providing responses to all DFSER design issues, for updating the SSAR, and for resolving ITAAC issues.
b.
On December 2 and 3, 1992, the staff met with ABB-CE to discuss System 80+ severe accidents.
c.
On December 15, 1992, the staff met with Westinghouse to discuss AP600 severe accidents and Level 2 PRA.
3.
MILESTONES NOT ACCOMPLISHED None.
4.
EFFECT ON SCHEDULE AND RECOVERY The staff will factor the GE proposed schedule for resolution of severe accident and PRA issues into its revised schedule for the ABWR final design approval. The revised schedule assumes that the updated severe accident positions affecting ABWR contain~d in the draft Commission paper " Design Certifi-e cation and Licensing Policy Issues Pertaining to Passive and Evolutionary Advanced Light Water Reactor Designs," are acceptable to the Commission.
5.
MILESTONE PLANNED FOR NEXT QUARTER Develop a revised schedule for ABWR final design a.
approval.
b.
Meet with ABB-CE on issues related to this topic in January 1993.
i l
l
\\ D.
DIVERSITY OF DIGITAL INSTRUMENTATION SYSTEMS 1
In the draft Commission paper " Design Certification and Licensing Policy Issues Pertaining to Passive and Evolutionary Advanced Light Water Reactor Designs," the staff proposed new requirements for digital instrumentation and control (I&C) systems. These new requirements were developed to help ensure that a potential common mode failures in digital I&C systems would not adversely affect the safe operation of an evolutionary or. advanced LWR plant and
(
would help to ensure that the plant can achieve a shutdown condi-tion.
After discussing this issue with the Commission and the ACRS and evaluating industry and vendor feedback to the proposed staff position, the staff will modify its draft position to address Commission, ACRS, industry and vendor comments.
For example, analyses that demonstrate adequate, rather than equivalent, l
defense against the postulated common mode failures would be allowed in the diversity assessment required of the applicant.
For the events postulated in the plant safety analysis report j
(SAR), an acceptable plant response should not result in a non-l coolable geometry of the core or violation of the integrity of the primary coolant pressure boundary or violation of the integrity of l
the containment. The critical safety functions that require l
backup manual controls and displays would be specified.
The staff would consider allowing more flexibility in implementing l
the independent set of displays and controls. The flexibility necessary will depend on the specific equipment and design fea-l tures of the I&C system and will be evaluated individually with each vendor. The staff will consider allowing the vendors to use diverse digital equipment that is not affected by the identified common-mode failures. The staff will not require only analog equipment and will consider allowing simple digital equipment.
The staff plans to discuss this issue further with both GE and ABB-CE in January 1993.
1.
MILESTONES FOR LAST QUARTER a.
To obtain the Commission's resolution of this policy issue.
b.
To discuss this issue with the ACRS.
2.
MILESTONES ACCOMPLISHED a.
This issue was discussed during a Commission meeting on September 8, 1992.
b.
The staff discussed this issue with the ACRS during a meeting on September 10, 1992.
l
i l
l j I j
3.
MILESTONES NOT ACCOMPLISHED None.
4.
EFFECT ON SCHEDULE AND RECOVERY Although this issue has not yet affected the schedules, it could affect them if its resolution would require significant changes to the control room designs.
l 5.
MILESTONES PLANNED FOR NEXT QUARTER 1
Continue to work with the vendors on this issue and, if i
necessary, seek and implement guidance from the Commission on this subject.
E.
REGULATORY TREATMENT OF NON-SAFETY SYSTEMS IN PASSIVE REACTOR l
i DESIGNS l
l In the draft Commission paper " Design Certification and Licensing l
Policy Issues Pertaining to Passive and Evolutionary Advanced l
Light Water Reactor Designs," the staff discussed its proposed position on the regulatory treatment of non-safety systems in passive reactor designs. The industry considers this issue the most significant issue associated with review of passive LWR l
designs.
In a Commission meeting conducted in September 1992, i
EPRI expressed their desire to generically resolve this issue in the context of the staff's review of the EPRI URD for passive i
reactor designs.
Subsequently, the staff developed a methodology which is useful for evaluating passive designs and should provide an approximate measure of the passive safety system reliability and availability necessary to license a design which would rely only on these passive systems for accident analyses. The staff is continuing to work with EPRI and the passive plant vendors to resolve this issue.
In November and December 1992, the staff conducted mid-level management meetings with EPRI to exchange information, to discuss the staff's preliminary findings, and to discuss proposed resolu-tions for this issue.
EPRI representatives restated their goals for a top-tier requirement that would result in crediting only passive safety systems in licensing accident analyses.
1 This issue is. scheduled to be discussed during the January 1993 senior management meeting with EPRI.
The staff will, as appro-priate, update the Commission of the status of resolution of this issue and, if necessary, seek additional Commission guidance.
i
l i
l l
l 1.
MILESTONES FOR LAST QUARTER j
Discuss this issue with the Commission.
2.
MILESTONES ACCOMPLISHED On September 8 and November 23, 1992, the staff discussed the regulatory treatment of non-safety systems with the Commis-l sion. During the Commission meeting on September 8, 1992, the Commission emphasized that this issue should be resolved in the EPRI URD.
3.
MILESTONES NOT ACCOMPLISHED None.
4.
EFFECT ON SCHEDULE AND RECOVERY l
This issue could potentially delay early review efforts on i
the AP600 and SBWR designs.
Depending of the results of the senior management meeting.with EPRI, the staff may seek i
Commission guidance on this issue before the scheduled reso-lution of policy issues in May 1993.
5.
PLANNED MILESTONES FOR NEXT QUARTER a.
Discuss this issue at the NRC/EPRI senior management meeting in January 1993.
b.
Promptly seek and implement the recommendations of the l
Commission on this subject.
III. PROJECT MILESTONES
(
A.
ABWR j
1.
MILESTONES FOR LAST QUARTER a.
Discuss the status of the ABWR review at the Commis-sion meeting on November 23, 1992.
l b.
Meet with GE, as necessary, to resolve open issues identified in the DFSER.
2.
MILESTONES ACCOMPLISHED a.
On October 14, 1992, the staff issued the DFSER to the Commission. The DFSER contained about 379 open items (about 175 of which pertained to ITAAC) and about 266 confirmatory items.
L b.
At a senior management meeting on November 18, 1992, GE committed to provide a chapter-by-chapter schedule for responding to all DFSER design issues, for updat-ing the SSAR, and for resolving ITAAC issues. The staff is using this input for its revised schedule.for the ABWR FDA.
c.
On November 23, 1992, the staff briefed the Commission on the progress of design certification reviews.. This briefing-focused on the generic lessons learned on i
ITAAC, the major technical issues affecting completion of the ABWR review, and the major ITAAC issues affect-ing completion of the ABWR review.
d.
GE and the staff are conducting intensive conference calls and face-to-face meetings at the working and management levels to reach prompt resolution to DFSER issues.
3.
MILESTONES NOT ACCOMPLISHED As reported in the previous quarterly update, because of the large amount of information that must be developed and re-viewed on ABWR open issues, the staff did not issue the FSER i
scheduled-for December 1992.
4.
EFFECT ON SCHEDULE AND RECOVERY The staff is assessing GE's schedule for resolution of open issues.
The staff will develop a revised schedule for FSER issuance and FDA. The revised schedule is expected to be provided to the Commission early in 1993.
In addition, a multidiscipline review team, headed by the Plant Systems Branch, has been formed to resolve ITAAC issues with GE.
The team will travel to GE in mid-January 1993.
5.
MILESTONES PLANNED FOR NEXT QUARTER a.
Develop a revised schedule for ABWR final design approval.
b.
Meet with GE as necessary to resolve open issues j
identified in the DFSER.
l c.
Expedite the resolution of selected system ITAAC for the ABWR with the multidiscipline NRR review team.
d.
Receive GE's submittal of the final SSAR to resolve DFSER open issues.
e.
Begin preparation of the FSER.
l
. B.
ABB-CE SYSTEM 80+
[
1.
MILESTONES FOR LAST QUARTER 1
a.
Continue to meet with ABB-CE to discuss and resolve open items identified in the DSER.
2.
MILESTONES ACCOMPLISHED a.
On September 28, 1992, the staff issued the System 80+
l DSER to the Commission. The DSER contained 638 open items and 130 confirmatory items. Major areas not ad-dressed by ABB-CE in its application and therefore not addressed in the DSER included ITAAC, shutdown risk, and severe accident closure.
b.
On November 5, 1992, the staff met with ABB-CE to
(
initiate the FSER phase of the System 80+ review.
l Numerous breakout sessions were utilized to provide staff reviewers and ABB-CE representatives opportunity l
to discuss and clarify major open items from the DSER.
c.
During the report period, the staff interacted with ABB-CE on ITAAC issues as detailed in iter II.B of this report'and severe accident ic h as detailed in item II.C of this report.
3.
MILESTONES NOT ACCOMPLISHED None.
4.
EFFECT ON SCHEDULE AND REC 0VERY In SECY-91-161, ABB-CE is scheduled to respond to the DSER open items by January 21, 1993. ABB-CE has responded in phases to the open items, having submitted approximately 350 items.
The majority of ITAAC submittals are planned to be submitted by the end of January with the final submittal scheduled for March 1993.
Delays in the final submittals (especially with regard to ITAAC) in conjunction with the resource impact associated with staff support of the revised ABWR schedule will likely delay the System 80+ review sched-ul e.
5.
MILESTONES PLANNED FOR NEXT QUARTER a.
Continue to meet with ABB-CE to discuss and resolve open items identified in the DSER.
b.
Meet with the ACRS on the System 80+ DSER.
' c.
Receive submittals from ABB-CE on the DSER open_ items -
and ITAAC.
C.
WESTINGHOUSE AP600 1.
MILESTONES FOR LAST QUARTER Continue to review the AP600 design including sending Wes--
tinghouse RAls, if appropriate.
2.
MILESTONES ACCOMPLISHED a.
The. staff continued its review of the AP600 design application submitted in June 1992 and has issued-
-about 680 RAIs to Westinghouse.
I i
b.
On December 15, 1992, Westinghouse submitted the I
information noted as missing or incomplete in the staff's original acceptance review of the AP600 appli--
1 cation. -The staff subsequently determined that the i
information provided fulfilled the requirements of i
l 10 CFR Part 52 and formally accepted the Westinghouse AP600 application as a docketed petition for design I
l certification.
3.
MILESTONES NOT ACCOMPLISHED l
l Hone.
4.
EFFECT ON SCHEDULE AND REC 0VERY The staff's review schedule for the AP600 is under eval-uation. Until the formal review schedule is established, the staff will follow the estimated review schedule provided in-SECY-92-294, " Acceptance Review of the Westinghouse Electric Corporatio'n's Application for Final Design Approval and Design. Certification for the AP600 Design." The staff plans to complete issuing RAls by April 19, 1993,'and Westinghouse responses are scheduled for completion by August 23, 1993.
5.
MILESTONES PLANNED FOR NEXT QUARTER Continue to review the AP600 application and issue RAls.
D.
SBWR 1.
MILESTONES FOR LAST QUARTER Complete acceptance review of the SBWR application.
. 2.
MILESTONES ACCOMPLISHED i
On December 10, 1992, the staff transmitted a letter to GE regarding the staff's acceptance review. The staff stated that although the application contained a large amount of information, it did not include all of the information re-quired by 10 CFR Part 52.
3.
MILESTONES NOT ACCOMPLISHED None.
4.
EFFECT ON SCHEDULE AND REC 0VERY The staff informed GE that it will continue to review the application for SBWR, but that it will establish a formal l
review schedule only after determining that the application is complete.
GE will provide the remainder of its applica-tion by the end of February 1993.
5.
MILESTONES PLANNED FOR NEXT QUARTER The staff will continue to review the SBWR design, including sending RAls if appropriate.
E.
EPRI UTILITY REQUIREMENTS DOCUMENT FOR PASSIVE REACTORS 1.
MILESTONES FOR LAST QUARTER a.
Review EPRI's response to the DSER.
b.
Begin preparing the FSER.
2.
MILESTONES ACCOMPLISHED a.
On September 2, 1992, EPRI completed submitting its responses to the DSER issues.
b.
On September 8, 1992, the staff briefed the Commission on issues discussed in the draft passive LWR policy ani technical issues paper.
c.
On September 10, 1992, the staff briefed the ACRS on l
the draft passive LWR policy and technical issues paper.
l d.
During the reporting period, the staff conducted numerous meetings with EPRI representatives to discuss and resolve DSER open items. These issues include dose reduction methodologies, proposed elimination of i
i
., j charcoal filters, human factors, instrumentation and controls, radioactive waste processing,- and the tur-bine generator.
e..
As' detailed in item II.E of this report, the staff conducted several working level' meetings with EPRI on the policy issue of regulatory treatment of non-safety systems in anticipation of'a senior management meeting.
with EPRI in January 1993.
3.
' MILESTONES NOT ACCOMPLISHED.
I None.
4.
EFFECT ON~ SCHEDULE AND RECOVERY j
EPRI responded to the staff's DSER on September 2, 1992, in accordance with the schedule in SECY-91-161.
5.
MILESTONES PLANNED FOR NEXT QUARTER
.i a.
Pursue resolution of the policy issue on regulatory treatment of non-safety systems as detailed in item II.E of this report.
b.
Continue to review EPRI's response to the DSER and-to
~
prepare the FSER.
i t
l l
u l
l
1
\\
6 I
i i
J i
\\
l i
l 4
j l
l l
I I
l le 1
I l
i